Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 November 1

= November 1 =

Defamation slope
Boldly moved from Village pump (policy) since this seems like the right place for it. zchrykng (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The law of defamation is seen as a "slippery slope" topic within the freedom-ist point of view, because it severely restricts the public's right of free speech in the area of what individuals in the general public can say about individuals in the "private" public. But putting that aside, this question deals with what treaties have direct influence on defamation law.

More to the point, what secrecy protocols are in place which affect such treaties, such that public law has aspects which are affected by the secrecy protocols attached to treaties? And in particular, what secrecy aggreements exist between the United States and Britain exist that restrict American free speech and have an influence on Wikipedia at the policy level? -Inowen (nlfte) 23:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This... seems like a WP:RD kind of question. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So because of defamation law, is it de-facto illegal in the United States to say the British monarch has committed a crime? Even though there should be serious limitations on defamation law claims. And how would that "law" have come about, and how is Wikipedia affected? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this is rather more than a hypothetical question. Would you care to provide context? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The protections to free speech provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be overridden by any law or treaty. Defamation is on the short-list of types of speech not entitled to first amendment protection, but the standards by which a statement would be declared defamatory in a US court do not change because a treaty is involved. The US does not have any Lèse-majesté laws shielding foreign heads of state from disparagement, as for example Germany did until earlier this year. In fact, it is even more difficult to prove defamation against a head of state than against an ordinary citizen, as the Sullivan standard must be met, though in fact such persons tend to have much better lawyers, so this could be easier in a way. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The secrecy thing is somewhat unclear. First I assume it's understood this is distinct from defamation, although first amendment issues still need to be considered. Secret treaties are generally considered rare in the modern era. Most negotiations are carried out at least in part in secret for a variety of reasons, this often includes draft documents. E.g. the Trans-Pacific Partnership which did involve the US (who later pulled out) but didn't involve the UK, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which involved the US and the UK as part of the EU, drew some controversy due to this. Anything which is Classified information in the United States would be restricted in the same way any such information is [//www.cnet.com/news/copyright-treaty-is-classified-for-national-security/]. Note in particular that while there may be laws preventing the unauthorised disclosure of such information, this doesn't mean it's illegal for anyone to publish it. See e.g. the New York Times Co. v. United States case or this discussion [//www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/why-the-press-can-publish-any-classified-material-it-likes/371488/]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, about the weird story on your user page User:Inowen, as well as the articles you've created which have been deleted User talk:Inowen like Protection of women, Original programs, Articles for deletion/Global policy, Cold living, Draft:Protection of children; do understand we have our own policies and guidelines which relate to what we want wikipedia to be. These will often reject stuff even if you're fully entitled to publish it in the US or UK without fear of legal action i.e. they often have nothing to do with defamation (as legally defined) and definitely not secrecy protocols in treaties or whatever. In fact, the foundation and community have often come out against any laws which they feel would unfairly impact what we may publish. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to emphasise the classified information bit, consider the case of "Malaysian Official 1" [//www.bbc.com/news/business-37234717]. As that source says, it was fairly obvious who it referred to. Even so, I assume any US federal government documents revealing the identity had some level of classification by the same US federal government. But I'm doubtful this had anything to do with treaties between Malaysia and US. It was simply that naming the person was seen as too politically sensitive. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For those still confused by this, Village pump (policy) is particularly illustrative e.g. "" and "". Also Talk:Restoration (England) and Talk:Brexit and Talk:Brexit and Talk:Anglicanism and Talk:Socialism. Don't worry, it isn't just monarchy/aristocracy Talk:Surveillance/Archive 1 "" To Inowen, other than what I said above, please read WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the linked Free speech. Maybe you're going to dismiss this since I'm from NZ, although I'm actually a republican and am free to say that I think the British monarchy should bugger off without fear of persecution, but I'll say again this has nothing to do with defamation or US-UK treaties or US-NZ treaties or any crap like that. I don't, as with many wikipedians, give a flying flip what the queen wants nor other members of the aristocracy and am definitely not under instruction to censor you. However editing wikipedia is ultimately about building an encyclopaedia, and we do that with reliable sources, not with the theories of random editors. Feel free to start your own website where you can ramble to your hearts content on the evils of the aristocracy and how the UK isn't a democracy etc. I would suggest you don't draw more attention to yourself since you've probably already well earned a WP:NOTHERE block.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)</p.


 * No US-UK treaty can override the first amendment to the US Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Without regard for whether defamation has actually occurred in any specific case on Wikipedia, defamation is not protected speech. Under U.S. law, libel and slander, where the person writing or speaking the falsehoods, knowingly makes detrimental false statements about someone else, has committed defamation.  That is not protected speech.  It must be a statement of fact which is knowably false.  If I said "John Doe kills kittens!" and he doesn't actually do that, the statement is NOT protected speech, because it is a statement of fact which I know to be false (or for which I have shown a reckless disregard for its truthfulness).  -- Jayron 32 14:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True. But no treaty can override what is considered protected speech in America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Our lawyers can correct me if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that we are governed by US defamation laws (since WMF is a US based entity, and our servers are in the US). These laws are very similar, but not exactly the same as the laws in the UK. One does not need to be a US citizen to file a suit in a US court. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The essence of my question is with regard to aristocratic ("rule of the best-born") group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument. So the bizarro logic is that its always defacto-illegal to call a monarch a thief, because by their own law they are immune from prosecution and therefore 'never a thief.' In this context "defamation" is always a red-herring because there is no intent of pursuing legal action in open court under "defamation" law. But secretive ways allow for such bizarro arguments. Wikipedia may be US-based but its connection to US law may be hacked by both secrecy and aristocratic law, under which no act is a crime, and all criticism is "defamation." Does Wikipedia absorb some of this aristocratic law? -Inowen (nlfte) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific examples of an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument"? It would be interesting to know exactly what you're referring to. Alssa1 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is a fantasy formed within your own head, and betrays a profound lack of understanding of United States defamation law. See especially the concept of substantial truth. I agree with Alssa1 - you should show us examples of what you think is going on, and we can help you understand. Or alternatively, you should read about defamation law in general, perhaps starting from our own article on it and following the sources from there. Because it truly seems like you've just come up with a legal argument by yourself, and have decided it's an issue, and want us to discuss your idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In additions to the good points above, I would note that bringing up defamation on wikipedia is generally discouraged due to the risk it could be perceived as a legal threat and so result in a WP:NLT block. This is not to say we ignore defamation, Libel and WP:BLP, but rather experienced editors generally find a better to talk why the material is a problem without having to talk about defamation. As I said above, our policies and guidelines intentionally go beyond defamation. In fact, we would generally be more tolerant of nonsense about the aristocracy and monarchy then we would about random relatively unknown individuals. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I think you would agree the monarchy would be a problem if it was meddling aristocratically with Wikipedia. -Inowen (nlfte) 08:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, but Wikipedia has enough problems without worrying about fantasies. One example of a problem wikipedia does have is editors who misuse article talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarifying, I have no idea what 'meddling aristocratically' is. I would be worried about anyone editing inappropriately or in some way influencing other editors. I'm not worried about the monarchy, in that category for the stated reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I definitely think this discussion is tending towards Reptilians territory. Dmcq (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You first suggest that there is an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base" and then on the slightest investigation of that claim you appear to change entirely and suggest that it might occur in the future. Which is it; are you referring to a specific issue effecting Wikipedia or have you concocted a scenario in your head and you just want to see whether it has some plausibility? Alssa1 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. I suspect systematic bias coming from Britain, implemented by Britain's subjects including Canadians and Australians, and my evidence is scattered from a wide sampling of Wikipedia articles, for example the use of British government terms like "Her Majesty's government." The US where I am from is substantially different from the UK; the US citizen believes in freedom and in doing the right thing. The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.' The UK currently has no lèse-majesté laws, but it has by default the equivalent, and as another editor pointed out, absolute immunity for the monarch. There can be no promotion of monarchy on Wikipedia. It contributes to systemic bias (sic), not correcting it, and defeats Wikipedia's purpose. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the worst example you can find, then there's no crisis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "The UK instead believes in the loyalism to the monarch and the perpetuation of its monarchy, not the freedom of the individual, and not in the idea 'that every person on Earth have free access to the sum of all knowledge.'" What utter horse shit. Are you going to try and troll all non-American parts of the world, or just the UK. After spouting off elsewhere that the UK isn't democratic, we now don't believe in freedom of the individual and therefore free access to knowledge? I've seen some idiotic logic in my time, but yours is probably the worst I've come across. You are either trolling, or just too dumb to realise just how wrong you are, and I don't know (or care) which it is. WP:NOT HERE and WP:DNFTT are probably best applied here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to justify your claims (particularly the existence of "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base") or do you intend to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your rather 'eccentric' opinions/conclusions? Alssa1 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Inowen appears to be engaging in an informal fallacy or cognitive bias known as jumping to conclusions of the "mind-reading" type. That is, Inowen believes he knows what motivates others without having access to information required to reach that conclusion. I was going to say he was engaging in faulty- or overgeneralization (which is actually JoC of the 'labeling' type), but this requires there actually being at least one example of what everyone in a group is being accused of. No evidence or arguments are like to sway him, because, as Swift put it, "Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

All I am saying is there is systemic bias coming from the anti-democratic government of Britain, and that its routes need to be investigated. Using "Her Majesty's government" in article text is only one of them. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, don't be daft. There is probably less there even than there is in the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the US. I get the feeling you've been reading David Icke who says the royal family are inter-dimensional reptillians. Well he also says George W Bush is one. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And all everyone else is saying is that you are misguided and ignorant. Perhaps you'd like to look at the various indecies of democracy:
 * Democracy Ranking: UK in position 14; US in position 16
 * Polity IV: UK classed as Full Democracy; US in the lower class of Democracy
 * Human Development Index: US in position 13; UK in position 14
 * Democracy Index: UK in position 14 (full democracy); US in position 21 (flawed democracy)
 * Economic Freedom of the World: UK in position 11; US in position 16
 * Inowen, you've taken enough time and effort from the grown ups trying to explain just how immature and ignorant your hypotheses are. There is no systematic bias as you perceive it, and using "Her Majesty's government" isn't an example of bias: it's the formal title of the democratically elected government of the day. I suggest you try a proper book that explains just how British politics works, because what you think happens is a long way from reality. - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Her Majesty's government is like a Congress where the President not rubber stamping everything would cause a constitutional crisis but he gets to have the Congress called His Majesty's Congress and the use of some palaces and stuff till he dies. Very old palaces. It is the result of a powerful king losing power over the centuries till he's only a figurehead. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And all I'm asking for is evidence to demonstrate that your claims have some basis in reality. Earlier on you spoke of an "aristocratic group attacking Wikipedia's American base by using defamation as an argument", do you have an example of this? You also said "The US...is substantially different from the UK; the US citizen believes in freedom and in doing the right thing." perhaps you're unaware of this, but many of us non-Americans don't view the USA as a barometer for measuring "freedom" or "doing the right thing". Alssa1 (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Churchill, something like this: "America can be counted on to do the right thing - after it's tried everything else." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple of those indices you list are ranking monarchies with the label "full democracy." There's got to be something wrong there. Two of the indices you list are British, one of them is Austrian. The one by the UN ranks "development" and not "democracy." The UN is well-known for being hacked by the UK, particularly the Security Council. Naturally the CIA follows along, but not with serious data. So your point is that there are reliable sources which say that your country which is a monarchy is also a "full democracy?" How can this be? How can a nation state with a hereditary (unelected) leader who has absolute state immunity be called a "full democracy?" Your personal attacks are out of line.-Inowen (nlfte) 02:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wish to ignore the independent rankings and indices, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other sources that state the UK is a full democracy with a constitutional monarchy, then I guess there is no help for you. However, Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for your version of ill-informed redneck political theory. Get a blog and talk to yourself, not here: this is the place of reliable sources and reality. - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the sources above, the Varieties of Democracy Project, an international collaboration led by US and Scandinavian universities, in their Annual Democracy Report 2018 has the UK at 15 and the USA at 31 (p. 22/96) in their Liberal Democracy Index. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

How often do Catholics have to go to confession?
If one is a Catholic, how often is one required by the Church to go to confession? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Confession (religion), the answer would appear to be "at least once a year." A better answer might be, "whenever you need to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that although 1 year is the absolute maximum (when someone is able to confess), as mentioned in Sacrament of Penance someone who has committed a mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church until they have confessed it (if they are able). Also concern over dying with unconfessed mortal sins and the greater complexity surrounding forgiveness for Contrition of unconfessed mortal sins may be an additional motivator. They are those (few I think) who practice Frequent confession. In practice for many catholics, mortal sin concerns arise frequently e.g. masturbation, contraception, skipping mass see for example, this discussion [//forums.catholic.com/t/how-common-is-mortal-sin/108305]. Note however this doesn't mean that you do the sin, confess, do what acts of penance the priest tell you and it's all good even though you have no plans to stop, or maybe even believe it's a sin. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Also read Indulgence. It also has a history section! B.t.w. the excessive abuse of Indulgence led to the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther. --Kharon (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1828


In 1828, Andrew Jackson did extremely well in the Deep South, winning every county in which a vote was held, except for a few Georgia counties that voted for someone named Clarke. However, Adams won several Louisiana parishes, including several with more than 80% support if I'm reading the map rightly. Although Louisiana had just 8,687 popular votes among all candidates, versus 46,966 in the other Deep South states, Adams won almost as many popular votes in Louisiana (4,082) as in the others put together (4,371). Why did he have so much support in Louisiana? Also, who was Clarke? There's a Clarke County, Georgia, but the namesake Elijah Clarke died in 1799, and his article doesn't mention any relatives who used the same spelling. United States presidential election in Georgia, 1828 doesn't mention Clarke; United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1828 doesn't discuss Adams' comparative success; and there's nothing in the election's main article. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's something. The map was created by . He may be inactive at present, but he might be reachable via email, and could maybe tell you his source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left a note for Tilden. But what about Louisiana?  Unlike Mr Clarke, the data for Louisiana are backed up in the election results (that's where I got the exact numbers I quoted); they just have no explanation why he was more popular in Louisiana than elsewhere in the region.  Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One possibility: Adams supported a national road from Washington to New Orleans and inland waterways improvements that would bring more business through Louisiana. Rmhermen (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Louisiana had a very restrictive franchise, and I suspect that many of the voters were of or beholden to the planter class, which may not have trusted Jackson due to his popular support among the common man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Something else to consider: New Orleans is a very un-Southlike city; historically and culturally, it more resembled New York and Boston than, say, Atlanta. You can see evidence of this in the local variety of English known as "Yat", an accent which closely resembles those of the Northeastern United States; largely because New Orleans was settled by the same sorts of people who settled the Northeastern cities.  It isn't surprising that these people had similar political viewpoints.  Louisiana is an unusual state, and it was even back then; like Florida, only parts of it are traditionally "southern".  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As to Clarke, I strongly suspect, but do not have proof, that this was John Clark (Georgia governor). His article says his name was sometimes spelled Clarke and that he lived in Milledgeville, which is in Baldwin County, Georgia; and, from the map, the county that voted most heavily for "Clarke" seems to have been Wilkinson, which is adjacent to Baldwin, though Baldwin itself voted for Jackson. The thing is that according to multiple sources I found in Google Books, John Clark and his rival George Troup both nominated slates of electors to vote for Jackson in 1828 (with different running mates for VP). If Clark was that active in the election then it doesn't seem surprising that he got some electoral votes himself. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Correcting myself: I mean that some people voted for him to get some electoral votes himself. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. In The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828, pp148-149, the author suggests “Among the French-speaking element in New Orleans there was still resentment against Jackson’s high-handedness in 1815, his treatment of his critics, and his suspension of habeas corpus even after it was known that the war was over.”…there’s more, but that is presented as the core reason for Louisiana leaning Adams. See Battle of New Orleans. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those details. I'll pull some of that into the election article.  Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)